Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

26 Overview A survey of state practices was conducted to document the practices and processes used by state transportation agencies to identify and evaluate locations damaged by multiple emergency events. The survey also included questions to determine how agencies are incorporating the results of these efforts in asset management and infrastructure investment decisions. The survey questionnaire was distributed to the asset management lead contacts in all 50 state DOTs, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, as identified by FHWA. FHWA maintains this list on their website at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/amcontacts.cfm (FHWA 2019). Figure 3-1 illustrates which agencies participated in the survey. At the time the survey was distributed, in February 2019, the deadline for compliance evaluations of the NHS had passed, but agencies have until November 23, 2020, to evaluate the remainder of the public road network (23 CFR § 667.7). Forty-two of the 52 surveyed agencies responded (81%). This chapter summarizes the findings from the survey of practices. The information is presented in a number of formats, including both tables and graphs as appropriate. A copy of the electronically distributed survey questions is provided as Appendix A, and individual survey responses are provided as Appendix B. In the discussion, the percentage of agency responses is based on the total number of respondents (single-answer questions) or the number of responses to each answer option (multiple-answer questions). Survey Content The survey questions were organized into the following six categories: • Respondent Information: Information such as respondent title, agency work unit, and contact details. • 23 CFR § 667 Analysis Status: Information on the agency’s current status regarding iden- tifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events. • Data Sources: Information regarding the data elements, data sources, data gaps, and tools used to identify locations damaged by emergency events for the November 23, 2018, deadline. • Internal and External Support: Information regarding the internal and external organizations and staff involved in identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events. • Developing Established Criteria: Information regarding the established criteria and tech- niques to identify locations damaged more than once. C H A P T E R 3 State of the Practice

State of the Practice 27 • Written Procedures and Compliance Processes: Information regarding written procedures, the procedures’ compliance, aspects of how the agency’s plans have or will incorporate the procedures, and planned enhancements to the procedures. The results of the survey are presented in the rest of this chapter. It is important to note that the survey results are representative of the agency data, practices, processes, systems, and soft- ware at the time the survey was distributed (January 2019) and submitted to the research team (February to April 2019). Respondent Information The first section of the survey gathered basic information about the agency representatives who filled out the survey. Figure 3-2 summarizes each agency representative’s agency work unit. From the 42 completed survey responses, 14 of the 42 agency representatives (33%) selected more than one agency work unit, resulting in a total of 60 agency work units involved in completing the survey. Most of the representatives were in the Asset Management or Planning and/or Programming agency work units, at 27 (64%) and 12 (29%), respectively. The agency work units designated as Other consisted of work units that were not options in the survey but were defined by the agency representatives. The agency work units in the Other category and the number of agency representatives in that category (indicated by the number in parentheses) included Local Government Program Management (1), Materials Division (1), Office of the Director (1), Performance Management (2), Research (1), and Strategic Performance (1). Figure 3-1. State agencies that participated in the survey (42 responses).

28 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events 23 CFR § 667 Analysis Status The second section of the survey pertained to each agency’s current status regarding identi- fying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events. Specifically, the survey looked to determine what percentage of each highway network (NHS, non-NHS federal-aid (FA) system, and public roads systems) has been reviewed to identify facilities that have been damaged by multiple emergency events and facilities that have developed alternative strategies. According to 23 CFR § 667, agencies were required to complete their evaluations for the NHS network by November 23, 2018, and must complete evaluations for the remaining public road systems by November 23, 2020 (23 CFR § 667.7). A documented example of an alternative strategy process can be found in the discussion on Figures 2-2 and 2-3 of Chapter 2. Figure 3-3 illustrates the percentage of each highway network that has been reviewed to identify facilities damaged by multiple emergency events, which include emergencies declared by the governor of the state or emergencies and disasters declared by the president of the United States. As this was a three-part question, the number of agencies responding to each part varied. To account for this, Figure 3-3 includes nonresponses, and percentages are calculated on a basis of 42 responses. As can be seen in Figure 3-3, only 34 of the 42 responding agencies (81%) indicated that they had completed a full review of the NHS at the time of the survey. Fifteen agencies (36%) indicated they had completed a full system review of non-NHS FA-eligible Figure 3-2. Survey respondents’ agency work units (42 responses). Figure 3-3. Percentage of highway system reviewed for multiple emergency events (42 responses for NHS; 38 responses for non-NHS FA system; and 18 responses for all public roads).

State of the Practice 29 routes, and only six (14%) had completed a full review of the public roads network. One agency (2%) indicated it was yet to start a system review of the NHS, while 10 agencies (24%) indicated they had not begun to review the non-NHS FA-eligible routes, and seven (17%) had not begun to review the public roads system. It is important to note that four agencies (10%) did not respond to the question regarding the non-NHS FA-eligible routes, and 24 agencies (57%) did not provide a response regarding the public roads system. All 42 agencies (100%) responded to the question regarding the NHS network. Figure 3-4 illustrates the percentage of agencies that have completed evaluations of reasonable alternative strategies, broken down by network type. According to 23 CFR § 667, a reasonable alternative strategy can partially or fully reduce the need for federal funding; improve public safety, health, and the natural environment; and meet agency goals as reported in the relevant plan or program. As can be seen in Figure 3-4, most states had either completed evaluations for sites identified on the NHS (14, 33%) or did not identify any sites (15, 36%). The results are more mixed for the non-NHS FA system and the public roads system, for which only four (10%) completed evaluations on the non-NHS FA system and none on the public roads system. Five agencies (12%) did not respond to the question regarding the NHS, six agencies (14%) did not respond to the question regarding the non-NHS FA system, and 24 agencies (57%) did not provide a response regarding the public roads system. These results correlated with the earlier responses regarding the status of site identification efforts, as several agencies indicated having no locations with two or more emergency events. Data Sources Identified Damage Locations: Data Availability The third section of the survey was to gather information on data elements, data sources, data gaps, and tools used to identify locations damaged by emergency events for the November 23, 2018, deadline. The first question in this section determined the data availability and format for each network (i.e., NHS, non-NHS FA, and public roads) and event type (i.e., president- declared or governor-declared). Forty agencies provided responses to these questions. Figure 3-4. Percentage of highway system that has developed alternative strategies, by network type (37 responses for NHS; 36 responses for non-NHS FA system; and 18 responses for all public roads).

30 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Figures 3-5 and 3-6 illustrate the completeness and ownership of data used to identify locations damaged by emergency events for the November 23, 2018, deadline. As can be seen in Figure 3-5, a majority of respondents reported having complete data for both president- and governor-declared events through internal and external sources, 28 and 29 agencies (70% and 73%), respectively. Two agencies (5%) did not respond to this question, and one agency (3%) responded that it was yet to start the analysis. Figure 3-6 shows agencies generally had more complete data for the NHS than for other networks. For the NHS, 29 of the responding agencies (73%) reported having fully available data through internal and external data sources, compared to 23 agencies (58%) that reported having complete data for the non-NHS FA network and 11 agencies (28%) having complete Figure 3-5. Data source completeness to identify damaged locations, by event type (40 responses). Figure 3-6. Data source completeness to identify damaged locations, by network type (41 responses for NHS, 41 responses for non-NHS FA, and 37 responses for public roads).

State of the Practice 31 data for the non-FA networks, respectively. One agency (3%) was yet to start the analysis on the NHS network. Six and seven agencies (15% and 18%) were yet to start the analysis on the non-NHS FA and public roads network, respectively. One agency (3%) did not respond to this question in regard to its NHS and non-NHS FA networks, and five agencies (13%) did not respond to this question in regard to their public roads network. Identified Damage Locations: Data Formats Agencies reported using a mix of data sources to identify emergency events and damage sites. Figures 3-7 and 3-8 illustrate the data formats, such as GIS, enterprise tabular database, desktop databases (i.e., databases that are not shared and are accessible to only one user at a time) Figure 3-7. Data source formats used to identify damaged locations, by network type (40 responses for NHS; 36 responses for non-NHS FA; and 28 responses for public roads). Figure 3-8. Data source formats used to identify damaged locations, by event type (38 responses for president-declared events and 37 responses for governor-declared events).

32 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events or spreadsheets, and hard copy records used to identify locations damaged by emergency events for the November 23, 2018, deadline. An enterprise database is a data management system that can store large interrelated data sets and is accessible by multiple users simultaneously. On the other hand, a desktop database can store a large data set but is only accessible by a single user at a time. Tabular databases organize data in sets of vertical columns and horizontal rows called tables. Each row in a table represents a single record made up of data elements stored in the columns. Records in different tables are related to each other through data elements that are common between tables. Spatial databases are structured to optimize data for querying by their location in a geometric space. For highway agencies, the geometric space is typically a digital representation of a map. As can be seen in Figures 3-7 and 3-8, the common data format across all event types and network systems was desktop databases or spreadsheets. The next common data types were enterprise tabular databases and GIS records. Two, six, and 14 agencies did not respond to this question regarding the NHS, non-NHS FA, and public roads networks, respectively. The number of agencies responding varied by network. To address this, nonresponses are shown in Figures 3-7 and 3-8, and percentages are based on the total of 42 respondents. As can be seen in Figure 3-7, there was a total of 79 agency responses as 22 agencies indicated the use of two or more data formats to identify damaged locations on the network systems. Figure 3-7 shows that for identifying damage locations on the NHS, 25 agencies (60%) used desktop databases or spreadsheets. The next common data type was enterprise tabular databases, which 18 agencies (43%) used. Sixteen agencies (38%) used GIS records, and 14 agencies (33%) used hard copy records. As can be seen in Figure 3-8, 16 agencies (38%) identified using multiple data sources to identify president- and governor-declared events, resulting in a total of 63 agency responses. It is worth noting that one agency (2%) indicated the use of all four data formats (GIS records, desktop database or spreadsheets, enterprise tabular databases, and hard copy records) across all event types and network systems, except for the public roads system. A further breakdown of the number of agencies that indicated using two or more data formats can be found in Appendix B. Based on comments from survey responders, most agency emergency events were identified from asset management systems, financial management information systems (FMIS) records, the state’s office of emergency management, historical construction plans, and FEMA. For one agency, the data were originally mined out of the state’s electronic program management system and compiled into a GIS map. Most state NHS projects and some local NHS projects were geospatially placed using GIS software. The Washington State DOT’s response indicated that the agency has two primary internal systems—the federal aid tracking system (FATS) and system program oversight reporting and tracking (SPORT)—for state and local qualifying federal emergency projects. The DOT used FATS and SPORT to query relevant data. The Washington State DOT’s statewide event locations were identified and incorporated into GIS with no in-depth analyses, thus limiting the initial reviews to the NHS only. Internal and External Data Sources The next set of questions in the survey was organized to gain an understanding of the internal and external data sources used in the analysis. Figure 3-9 illustrates the internal data sources used. Forty of the 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question. Twenty-seven of the 40 agencies that responded to the question selected more than one internal data source to support their

State of the Practice 33 efforts. Consequently, Figure 3-9 has a total of 99 responses. As a result, the responses showed that a range of data sources was used to identify damage locations. The commonly used data source was GIS (21 agencies, 53%), followed by FHWA ER Plans of Projects (20 agencies, 50%). Plans of projects are summaries of information from DDIRs that are used by state DOTs and FHWA to authorize and track the expenditure of ER funds. A plan of projects provides details of the program compiled for each emergency event that is determined to be eligible for ER funding, as per 23 CFR § 668.113(a). The majority of the other internal data sources reported were financial (e.g., capital program management software), other software such as roadway closure reporting systems, and light detection and ranging (LiDAR). Figure 3-10 illustrates the external data sources used in the analysis. Thirty-one of the 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question. Twenty-two of the 31 agencies that responded to the question selected more than one external data source to support their efforts. Consequently, Figure 3-10 includes a total of 56 responses. As can be seen in Figure 3-10, most agencies used FHWA FMIS (27 agencies, 87%), followed by other federal agency systems (seven agencies, 23%). It is worth noting that 20 of the surveyed agencies indicated using FHWA FMIS only. Other external federal data sources used were FEMA records, Mobile Solution for Assessment and Reporting (MSAR), and wildfire web maps from the National Forest Service. Other external agency data sources used were a web-based application called Oracle Application Express (APEX), email, and financial management systems. FEMA maintains a database of disasters (FEMA 2019); however, the data set most likely does not include all events that meet the description for inclusion under 23 CFR § 667. Figure 3-9. Internal data sources used in the analysis (40 responses). Figure 3-10. External data sources used in the analysis (31 responses).

34 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Identified Data Elements The next set of questions in the survey discussed the data elements agencies are using to identify damage locations. Figure 3-11 illustrates the data elements used to identify damage locations. Forty-one of the 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question. Their responses identified a collective total of 99 external data sources, as shown in Figure 3-11. The commonly used data element is route/mile point, which was used by 37 agencies (90%), followed by asset identifica- tion number (ID) and physical mile posts or benchmarks, with 18 agencies each (44%). The majority of the Other data elements used were county boundaries, location descriptions, disaster declarations, and stationing. Figure 3-12 illustrates the data elements, other than location, that were used to identify damage locations. Forty of the 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question, with 33 of those agencies (83%) selecting more than one data element and 13 agencies (33%) using five or more data elements. As a result, Figure 3-12 has a total of 151 responses showcasing the use of a wide variety of non-location-based data elements. The most commonly used non-location-based data element is damage type (34 agencies, 85%), followed by repair type (30 agencies, 75%). The majority of Figure 3-11. Data elements used to identify damage locations (41 responses). Figure 3-12. Data elements used to identify damage locations other than location (40 responses).

State of the Practice 35 the Other non-location-based data elements used were the damage cause, the length of closure of access to the asset due to the damage and emergency repair, and the asset bridge or culvert identification number, if available, with the declared event year and name. Earliest Year of Complete Records The next set of questions in the survey determined how long agencies have been keeping complete records of emergency events and damage locations. Figure 3-13 illustrates the earliest year for which the surveyed agencies have complete records of emergency events and damage locations. Thirty-nine of the 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question, and each agency pro- vided a single response. As can be seen in Figure 3-13, only seven agencies (18%) have complete records covering the full analysis period required by 23 CFR § 667. The agencies had records dating back to between 1997 and 2000 (12 agencies, 31%). However, nearly half of the responding agencies did not have records dating back before 2001 (19 agencies, 49%). Encountered Data Gaps The last set of questions in the data sources section of the survey identified and analyzed the types of data gaps the agencies encountered, if any, during the analysis. All 42 surveyed agencies Figure 3-13. Earliest year the agency had complete records (39 responses).

36 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events responded to this question. Twenty-nine agencies (69%) reported that they had encountered data gaps. The following list summarizes some of data gaps described by those agencies: • Damage location descriptions were often not specific enough to map in GIS and analyze spatially with certainty, especially repairs listed by localities and for events that occurred before 2009. • Some of the location information in FMIS and the agency’s Maintenance Management System (MMS) for non-NHS routes was not specific enough for the type of work performed. The location information provided or available often contained partial information, such as general route and location by county. • Historic project information was sometimes incomplete, making it difficult to know which specific assets were damaged or how each had been repaired. • Some states expressed a lack of knowledge regarding potential alternative strategies to consider for repairing damaged assets. Internal and External Support The fourth section of the survey gathered information regarding the internal and external organizations and staff involved in identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events. Involved Lead Agency Work Units The first question in this section determined the lead agency work units involved in identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events for the NHS network, the non-NHS FA system, and the public roads system. Figures 3-14 to 3-16 illustrate the lead agency work units involved. As can be seen in Figure 3-14, for the NHS network, all 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question, and 23 agencies (55%) indicated the maintenance and/or operations work unit as the lead agency work unit, followed by the asset management work unit, which led the effort for 22 agencies (52%), then the planning and/or programming work unit (16 agencies, 38%). Twenty agencies (48%) listed more than one work unit as the lead for identifying damage Figure 3-14. Agency lead work units for identifying damage locations on the NHS network (42 responses).

State of the Practice 37 locations on the NHS network, indicating leadership was shared across these multiple work units. The trend is similar for the non-NHS FA system (Figure 3-15) and the public roads system (Figure 3-16) as well. The majority of the Other agencies involved were the district office, the state network local government division, and a 23 CFR § 667 advisory group. For future evaluations, one agency (2%) will involve the state thruway authority, the city council, and other local entities to complete evaluations for repetitive damage repair sites. Figure 3-15. Agency lead work units for identifying damage locations on the non-NHS FA system (40 responses). Figure 3-16. Agency lead work units for identifying damage locations on the public road system (22 responses).

38 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Involved Internal Support Work Units The next question in this section asked agencies to identify the work units involved in their processes. Figures 3-17 to 3-19 illustrate the internal support work units involved. Most agencies involved more than one organizational work unit in the process of identifying locations damaged by multiple events. Results from all 42 agencies are reflected in Figure 3-17. For the NHS (31 agencies, 74%) and non-NHS FA (24 agencies, 69%) systems, most agencies indicated the maintenance and/or operations work unit as one of the internal support work units (Figure 3-18). Next is the engineering work unit with 23 agencies (55%) and 17 agencies (49%), respectively, for the two systems. For the public roads system (Figure 3-19), most agencies indicated the main- tenance and/or operations work unit (11 agencies, 55%), then the asset management work unit (7 agencies, 35%). The majority of the Other work units involved were the district office, the accounting and finance division, the risk management division, an environmental resources or services office, and local public agencies (LPAs). Figure 3-17. Agency internal support work units for identifying damage locations on the NHS network (42 responses). Figure 3-18. Agency internal support work units for identifying damage locations on the non-NHS FA system (35 responses).

State of the Practice 39 Involved External Support Organizations The third question in this section determined the external support organizations involved in identifying and evaluating facilities damaged by emergency events for the NHS network, the non-NHS FA system, and the public roads system. Figures 3-20 to 3-22 illustrate the external support organizations involved. Figures 3-20 to 3-22 show relatively limited involvement of external organizations, with the exception of FHWA, which was involved with 26 agencies’ (67%) analyses of NHS highways. The next most commonly involved external agencies are state emergency management orga- nizations, which were involved in 15 (38%) of NHS analyses. Similar to Figures 3-14 and 3-17, the non-NHS FA system and the public roads system had fewer agencies that had completed a full system review on these networks (36 and 18 agencies, respectively), as illustrated in Figure 3-3, and therefore fewer survey responses to the question. In addition, three agencies did not respond to this question regarding the NHS network. Seeking assistance from the FHWA division office and acquiring the details of the continuity of operations plan (COOP) with internal and external agencies were other useful practices reported by DOTs. Figure 3-19. Agency internal support work units for identifying damage locations on the public road system (20 responses). Figure 3-20. External support organizations aiding agencies to identify damage locations on the NHS network (39 responses).

40 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Augmenting Staff to Conduct the Analysis The next two questions in this section determined whether any of the agencies have, or plan to, augment the agency staff to conduct this analysis on the NHS and non-NHS networks. All 42 surveyed agencies responded to these questions. The results showed that 11 agencies (26%) augmented their staff to conduct this analysis on their NHS network, whereas six agencies (14%) augmented their staff to conduct the analysis on their non-NHS network, and five agencies (12%) plan to augment staff to conduct the analysis on their non-NHS network. Of the 11 agencies that augmented staff for the NHS network analysis, seven of them plan on augmenting staff for the non-NHS network analysis. Figure 3-23 summarizes the type of support the agencies used or will use to conduct the analyses on both the NHS and non-NHS networks. The agencies that indicated having temporary workers explained that the workers were existing staff that were temporarily reassigned responsibilities. Figure 3-21. External support organizations aiding agencies to identify damage locations on the non-NHS FA system (36 responses). Figure 3-22. External support organizations aiding agencies to identify damage locations on the public roads system (18 responses).

State of the Practice 41 Developing an Established Criteria The fifth section of the survey collected information regarding the established criteria and techniques to identify locations damaged more than once. The first two questions in this section asked whether agencies had established criteria for determining whether two or more incidents of damage occurred in the same location and what techniques the agencies used to identify the locations damaged more than once. The last few questions in this section determined how many locations were damaged more than once and to whom within the agency the results are made available. Forty-one of the 42 surveyed agencies responded to these questions. Thirty of the 41 agencies (73%) indicated that they have established criteria for determining whether damage from different events occurred at the same location. Twenty-four of those 30 agencies (80%) indi- cated that they could share the criteria with the research team. This question also allowed agencies to indicate if they were willing to share criteria used to identify sites as having been damaged by multiple events. Thirty agencies indicated they had developed criteria (71%), and 24 of those agencies indicated they were willing to share those criteria with the synthesis. Through email exchanges, the synthesis collected information from 14 of those agencies. The following paragraphs summarize the responses that were provided in those emails. Some agencies located all projects that used emergency funds on a GIS-based map and checked to see whether there were any overlapping locations, which were identified by having the same beginning or ending mile points, or both. If the beginning or ending mile points were different, the required analysis would be conducted. Other states had more specific criteria. The follow- ing paragraphs highlight criteria and related procedures that identified nonoverlapping sites as being in the same location. Unless otherwise noted by citation, this information was gathered through email correspondence and phone conversations with representatives of the state DOTs. • Colorado provided the following procedure within their documented compliance procedures, described in Chapter 2. Figure 3-23. Augmented staff support types on NHS and non-NHS FA networks (42 responses).

42 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events The Colorado DOT’s bridge and pavement asset managers, under the supervision of the Colorado DOT’s Transportation Asset Management Working Committee, engaged in a multistep process to identify repeatedly damaged assets. The effort included – Reviewing requirements under 23 CFR § 667; – Generating a list of the 71 emergency declarations by FEMA within Colorado since 1997; – Reviewing a list of pavement segments falling within the geographic boundaries of each emergency event; – Reviewing a list of bridges and culverts within the geographic boundaries of each emergency event; – Reviewing and documenting the relevant repair and reconstruction projects for bridge, culvert, and pavement segments within the specified geographic boundaries of an emergency event and within one year (12 months) of the event; and – Comparing the information found in this process against the list of projects receiving FHWA’s FA Highway ER Program funding. Asset managers then used these data to ascertain whether there were Colorado DOT projects in the area of an emergency event, whether the project was the result of damage caused by the event, and whether the Colorado DOT had undertaken more than one project at that specific location since 1997 due to damage associated with an emergency event. A corresponding process took place through the Colorado DOT Office of Transporta- tion Safety, where the location of emergency events was compared to insurance claim submissions, providing additional data and evidence of assets damaged twice or more by emergency events. These efforts resulted in the creation of the first version of the Colorado DOT’s Damaged Assets Database. The Colorado DOT plans to continuously update this database using the process identified in section 3.0 of this report and the database schema outlined in appendix B (Colorado DOT 2018). • The New Hampshire DOT provided details of its routine analysis process, which includes a monthly TAMP 23 CFR § 667 Analysis Procedure as follows: 1. The Highway Maintenance work unit keeps a Microsoft (MS) Excel–based inventory of infrastructure that has been damaged in a FEMA-declared event. The inventory details include the event name, an ID, dates, the location, and damage or repair type. This infra- structure is cataloged within the state GIS system. 2. To conduct the analysis, the agency first applies a filter for roadways only, then for bridges. Rail and other types of infrastructure are excluded from the analysis. 3. The agency then runs a spatial joint analysis in ArcMAP (GIS software) to find any two sections of infrastructure within 50 feet of each other that have been damaged by distinct events. 4. Last, the roadway sections that fall under 23 CFR § 667 are cataloged and presented in a separate GIS layer. The roadway sections that are part of the NHS are highlighted. • The New York State DOT identifies ER repairs that are located within 500 feet of each other and have occurred due to different declared events. The team then uses judgment as to whether repairs qualify as repetitive damage. • The Oregon DOT considers all damage sites that require the same detour to be the same location. This is described in greater detail in Chapter 4. • The Pennsylvania DOT has established criteria to search the road condition reporting system (RCRS) and align the closures with named storms that occurred in the past. The agency looks for qualifying work performed on the identified segments (anything in addition to debris removal or shoulder backup) through the state contract system. The final list of segments is then filtered for time frames and areas where there were states of emergency or declared natural disasters.

State of the Practice 43 • The Washington State DOT asks the following eight questions to assist with a more detailed analysis and to meet the intent of 23 CFR § 667: 1. Has there been more than one qualifying federal ER project in the same location? 2. Are there any other federal ER projects within a 3-mile proximity to locations where recurring qualifying projects have occurred? 3. Have there been multiple discrete qualifying federal ER events around the identified project locations? 4. Has the federal ER project location been remediated through the federal ER project, state project, or subsequent state or federal projects in that area? 5. Did the original qualifying project have both repair and reconstruction activities? Did the overlapping project locations have both repair and reconstruction activities? 6. Is the root cause of the overlapping projects the same or different? Is there an alternative solution that can be developed to address the root cause of the issue? 7. If there is not an overlap between project locations but there is significant federal ER activity along the corridor, what is a reasonable distance between project locations to determine whether they should be grouped for consideration as part of the analysis? Both distance and root cause can and should be considered for this evaluation. For example, if project locations are within ½ mile of one another but the root cause is materially different, then the projects should not be grouped for alternative design consideration. 8. Once the project sites meeting the requirement to be included in the report are identified, which assets were repaired or replaced as a result of the event? • The Wyoming DOT considers sites located within ½ mile of each other as a single location. The agency codes projects with prefixes such as damage repair (normally manmade, like vehicle hits) and emergency repair (natural) and compares the projects with the researched list of declarations. To determine locations damaged multiple times, the agency uses its performance management software to search for all projects within ½ mile of each other and cross-references them by date with executive orders or presidential disaster declarations. It then assesses whether the projects were eligible for federal funding. From this process, the agency identifies locations that experienced repeat damage (to within ½ mile) and summarizes the type of work that was performed on the project. Damaged Location Identification Techniques The second question in this section determined the techniques used to identify the locations damaged more than once. Forty-one agencies answered this question. Figure 3-24 illustrates the techniques agencies indicated they used, whether the agency had established criteria for locating damage sites or not. Thirty-five agencies of the 41 responding agencies (85%) selected more than one technique. As a result, Figure 3-24 has a total of 109 responses. The most commonly used techniques are database queries (27 agencies, 66%) followed by manual records searches (24 agencies, 59%). The majority of the “Other” techniques used were reviewing MS Excel spreadsheets, questioning tenured maintenance staff, reviewing construction plans and organizational history, and using the established criteria as described in the previous section. Number of Identified Damaged Locations Table 3-1 summarizes the number of locations the agencies have identified to date that have been damaged by more than one emergency event on each of the three network types

44 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events (NHS, non-NHS FA, public roads) by asset owner (state DOT, toll authority, municipal or county). Responses to this question varied by network: • 40 agencies provided a response for sites on the NHS. • 23 agencies provided a response for sites on the non-NHS FA network, three of which indicated they had not performed the analysis. • 19 agencies provided a response for sites on the remaining public road access, two of which indicated they had not performed the analysis. As can be seen in Table 3-1, there is a range in the number of identified locations; however, the general trend is that most agencies have identified at least one location that has been damaged by an emergency event, and very few agencies have identified more than six locations damaged multiple times. For instance, for assets on the NHS network owned by state DOTs, 20 agencies (48%) identified no locations damaged more than once, 11 agencies (26%) identified locations damaged between one and five times, and eight agencies identified locations damaged more than 10 times. This trend is the same for all networks owned by state DOTs. Figure 3-24. Techniques used to identify locations damaged more than once (41 responses). Network Type Asset Owner Number of Damaged Locations to Date 0 1–5 6–10 11–15 16–20 21–25 > 25 NHS State DOT 20 11 0 2 1 3 2 Toll Authority 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 Municipal/County 14 1 0 0 0 0 0 Non-NHS Federal Aid State DOT 15 4 0 0 0 0 2 Toll Authority 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 Municipal/County 11 0 0 1 0 0 0 Public Roads State DOT 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 Toll Authority 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 Municipal/County 11 1 0 0 0 0 0 Table 3-1. Locations identified to have been damaged by more than one emergency event.

State of the Practice 45 It is worth noting that two agencies responded but did not provide a specific count of sites. The first agency provided a note that it had identified 40 total damaged locations across all network types. The other agency indicated it had identified “more than 20 locations along the NHS network.” Agencies are required to make the results of their analyses available to FHWA, and many organizations make the results available to other stakeholders as well. Figure 3-25 illustrates which stakeholders are provided information on multiple damage sites. Forty of the 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question. Thirty-six of the 40 agencies that responded to this question (90%) selected more than one stakeholder; subsequently, Figure 3-25 has a total of 128 responses. Most agencies provide the locations to internal staff (38 agencies, 95%), FHWA (35 agencies, 88%), or both internal staff and FHWA (16 agencies, 40%). MPOs in the stake- holder labeling are metropolitan planning organizations. Written Procedures and Compliance Processes The sixth and final section of the survey identified which agencies have developed or are developing written procedures and procedure compliance processes. The section also covers aspects of how the agency plans have incorporated or will incorporate the procedures and planned enhancements into the procedures. Written Procedures All 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question. The survey responses indicated that 11 agencies (26%) had developed written procedures for identifying facilities damaged by emergency events. Seven of the 11 agencies (64%) indicated that they could share the written procedures with the research team. Five of the written procedures were detailed in the previous section of this chapter, which discussed criteria for identifying sites damaged by multiple emergency events. The other two written procedures, for the Colorado DOT and the New Jersey DOT, were more detailed and as a result were described in greater detail in Chapter 2. TAMP Incorporation The next two questions in this section determine whether and how the analysis results were used in developing the agency’s initial TAMP submitted in April 2018 or the final TAMP submitted in June 2019, or both. Figures 3-26 and 3-27 present the results. All 42 surveyed Figure 3-25. Agency stakeholders with access to identified locations (40 responses).

46 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events Yes. No, but they will be in the 2019 TAMP submission. N/A, no locations were identified. Did not participate. Figure 3-26. Agencies that incorporated evaluation procedures into the initial or final TAMP (42 responses). Figure 3-27. Sections of the TAMP affected by the results of § 667 (18 responses).

State of the Practice 47 agencies responded to these questions. Eighteen agencies (43%) indicated they have incorpo- rated the analysis results in the 2018 TAMP (initial TAMP), while 19 agencies (45%) indicated they will incorporate the analysis results into the 2019 TAMP (final TAMP). Most of these agencies have (15 out of the 18 agencies) or will (15 out of the 19 agencies) incorporate the analysis results in the risk management section of the initial and final TAMPs, respectively. Of the 18 agencies that incorporated their results into the initial TAMP, seven agencies (39%) indicated that the results were incorporated into more than one section, which is the reason there are 25 total responses represented in Figure 3-27. Of the 19 agencies that indicated their results will be incorporated into their final TAMP, six agencies (32%) indicated that the results would be incorporated into more than one section, which is the reason there are 26 total responses in Figure 3-27. The responses that were included in the Other category indicated the material may have been put in an appendix or the agency is waiting to include the information after their asset management processes become more mature. Alternative Strategy Development The next question assessed how many agencies have completed evaluations of alternative strategies for the sites identified as being damaged by more than one emergency event. All 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question. The results indicated that 21 of the 42 agencies (50%) have identified emergency event locations but only nine (43%) of the agencies that iden- tified locations have completed evaluations of alternative strategies, and one of these 21 agencies (5%) indicated they have partially completed evaluations. The follow-up question determined whether the alternative strategy evaluation results have been used in the development of any of the following documents or processes: STIP, TIP, project scoping, project selection, preliminary engineering, and final design. Figure 3-28 illustrates the results for the follow-up question from the 10 agencies that have partially or fully conducted alternative strategy evaluations. As can be seen in Figure 3-28, all 10 agencies (100%) have incorporated the alternative strategies into the states’ project scoping processes, followed by the project selection processes (seven agencies, 70%). Seven of the 10 agencies (70%) have incorporated the strategies into both project scoping and project selection. Two agencies (20%) have incorporated the strategies into only the project scoping processes. Challenges Meeting Requirements The next question determined the greatest challenge the agencies faced in meeting the regulation requirements. The results are summarized in Figure 3-29, in which each of the Figure 3-28. Processes that include the evaluated alternative strategies (10 responses).

48 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events 42 surveyed agencies provided a single response. As can be seen, the greatest challenges were data availability (16 agencies, 38%), lack of guidance (nine agencies, 21%) and resources/staffing (seven agencies, 14%). Within the Other category were a variety of challenges and comments such as no challenges, all the challenges suggested (as per Figure 3-29), lack of data availability (e.g., identifying the permanent repair locations, the disaster declaration intent, and whether repairs were completed), and required in-depth research to complete the analysis. Enhancements to Processes The last question in this section identified data, system, or process enhancements that the agencies will have in place by the November 23, 2020, deadline (response given as “in place by deadline”) or after the deadline (response given as “expected after deadline”) to support compliance with 23 CFR § 667. The results are summarized in Figure 3-30. Forty of the 42 surveyed agencies responded to this question. Twenty-nine out of the 40 agencies (73%) that responded to this question selected more than one enhancement, resulting in 101 enhancements expected to be in place by the November 23, 2020, deadline and 45 enhancements expected to be in place after the deadline, as can be seen in Figure 3-30. Figure 3-29. Agencies’ greatest challenges in meeting the requirements of regulation (42 responses).

State of the Practice 49 The following list provides brief descriptions of some of the key enhancements under devel- opment by responding agencies. • Data collection (process improvement or training) enhancements – Code a script into the GIS map service that will automatically notify, via email, multiple responsible parties of an ER funding trigger within the agency’s enterprise project manage- ment system. – Develop written processes based on the areas that were determined to have room for improvement in data collection. – Explore the use of FHWA’s MSAR application for uploading damage site data. MSAR is an electronic program for recording and tracking DDIRs for the federal ER program that has the ability to collect location data. – Use commercial GIS software tools to perform damage assessment inspections in the future. – Use commercial GIS software to maintain a GIS layer. One agency plans on developing mandatory GPS coordinates for mapping sites. • Data collection (hardware) enhancements – Enter DDIR inputs via the state asset management system rather than doing it by hand. – Incorporate new software, such as MSAR and Road Status and Damage Assessment (RSDA) on tablets and phones, to be used in the field and to provide to maintenance. • Data collection (software) enhancements – Develop an in-house application to use when identifying damaged locations and types. One agency plans to implement a new system for developing work orders and collecting damage. – Use commercial GIS software to maintain a GIS layer. One agency plans on developing mandatory global positioning system (GPS) coordinates for mapping sites. – Use software for collecting ER event information and modifying the information to determine if a damage location has experienced damage on more than one occasion, and if so, flag the location for formal analysis. • Data governance enhancements – Consolidate the historical records into an enterprisewide document management system. – Require all permanent repair locations to have roadway IDs. Figure 3-30. Agencies’ expected enhancements (40 responses).

50 Asset Management Approaches to Identifying and Evaluating Assets Damaged Due to Emergency Events – Develop a data business plan that will detail roles and responsibilities for data management (from initial data collection to ownership of damaged-asset database). • Data structure and analysis tool enhancements – Migrate away from MS Excel spreadsheets as an initial repository to an enterprise database environment, which will have a better tie-in to data governance. – Add ER alerts to the pavement management program. – Identify the repetitive sites via a geospatial tool before repairs are proposed to allow for 23 CFR § 667 evaluations. – Establish tools to share mapped repairs with other internal and external stakeholders. – Use either maintenance work reporting software or GIS mapping to identify ER issues. • Organizational changes enhancements – Make mapped repair GIS layers available throughout the organization (e.g., by Compre- hensive Asset Management Capital Investment Viewer). – Develop a plan to educate others in the agency of the emergency event requirements and how to assess assets during planning and project development phase. • Staffing enhancements – Re-staff in response to recent retirements in the last fiscal year. – Augment staff with consultants. – Increase coordination with external agencies, such as local governments. • Other enhancements – Continue research focused on mitigation and adaptation strategies and on identification of damage-prone sites and conceptual mitigation solutions. – Implement continuous process improvement and documentation of business practices and internal procedures on how frequently data should be updated and how to review for repeat locations. Survey Takeaways The survey results demonstrated significant differences in the approaches state DOTs used to identify and evaluate facilities damaged by multiple emergency events. The survey was distributed to these agencies in a time period between two deadlines included in federal regulation 23 CFR § 667. While most responding agencies reported having complied with the first deadline to perform the required evaluations of the NHS, there was significant vari- ance in the level of progress toward full compliance with the second deadline to evaluate the full public road network by November 23, 2020. The survey results also indicated variance in the extent to which agencies were able to develop formal documentation of their criteria and procedures related to the evaluations. In addition to the material included in this chapter, two examples of well documented practices were summarized as part of the literature review in Chapter 2. While most states had completed the identification and evaluation of sites on the NHS, relatively few states indicated that they were actively incorporating the results of these evalua- tions into processes related to planning and project development, although it should be noted that many states had completed their analyses of the NHS without identifying any sites to evaluate. Similarly, while all states identified challenges to compliance with the regulations, few states provided details on the process improvements they were pursuing to address these challenges. The case examples presented in Chapter 4 focus on four states that provided detailed responses to these forward-looking aspects of the survey.